“This is the latest in a series of annual reports to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) setting out the Government’s record on the implementation of adverse Human Rights judgments.”
Ministry of Justice, 24th October 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
Commission of the European Union v Federal Republic of Germany: (Case C-95/12); [2013] WLR (D) 399
“The procedure laid down in article 260(2)FEU of the FEU Treaty had to be regarded as a special judicial procedure for the enforcement of the judgments of the court, ie a method of enforcement.”
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“UK organisations looking to understand whether information they hold constitutes ‘personal data’ must not look solely at how the term was interpreted by the Court of Appeal in 2003, a High Court judge has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“In ‘Evans (No. 1)’, a 2010 case concerning the transfer of suspected insurgents for questioning in certain military centres in Afghanistan, the High Court had ruled, partly in an open judgment, partly in closed proceedings, that UK transfers to NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah could proceed without risk of ill treatment (which is contrary to UK policy), but that it would be a breach of the policy and therefore unlawful for transfers to be made to NDS Kabul. It was subsequently discovered that there had not been jurisdiction to follow a closed procedure in that case, but what was done could not be undone, so the confidentiality agreements and the closed judgment remained in force.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Case C-157/12); [2013] WLR (D) 362
“Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p 1) was of no application to irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same member states.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Yesterday, before His Honour Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a female Muslim defendant in a criminal trial must remove her face-covering veil (niqaab) whilst giving evidence, Home Office Minister Jeremy Brown said he was ‘instinctively uneasy’ about restricting religious freedoms, but that there should be a national debate over banning the burka.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Frank Feehan QC and Anna McKenna who appeared for the appellant in the Supreme Court and Justin Leslie offer a tabular summary of the findings of the individual Justices on key issues in the appeal.”
Family Law Week, 16th August 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“This time of year, high court and appellate judges will have been trying to clear their desks – to stop the complex half-finished judgment from skulking around in their minds and spoiling their holidays.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Short, old-style rulings that lay out the legal propositions relevant to the case and the conclusions reached by applying them should help reduce the cost litigation, the Court of Appeal has suggested.”
Litigation Futures, 25th July 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The Court of Protection is facing fresh questions about transparency, as The Independent reveals that its judges are making life-or-death decisions over the phone, with incomplete evidence, in proceedings that are not always recorded.”
The Independent, 24th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Lord Sumption’s ruling resolves the dilemma of enforcing the law and doing judgment.”
The Guardian, 12th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A judge hears a case and accepts one party’s version. That party provides a convincing closing speech (in a Word document) which the judge lifts, makes some modifications, and circulates as his judgment.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 26th May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Martha Gray, Pupil at 1 Garden Court, considers whether and in what circumstances a judge who has announced her decision is entitled to change her mind, particularly in the context of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings, in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment.”
Family Law Week, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Contrary to the practice previously adopted, a judge’s power to reverse his or her decision at any time before the court order had been sealed was not reserved for exceptional circumstances. A carefully considered change of mind by the judge was permisssible in the interests of the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 | UKSC 2012/0263 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
“After the euphoria engendered by the Court of Appeal judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the longawaited judgment of the Supreme Court which was handed down on 23 October 2012, has left the insolvency profession scratching its collective head. Lexa Hilliard QC takes a closer look at the judgment and explains why its reasoning is not entirely convincing.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, January 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“Judgment summaries are a good start, but it would be useful to watch recordings of full hearings. Do you agree?”
The Guardian, 21st January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Written rulings should be published when tribunals give judgments in order to properly inform public debate.”
The Guardian, 10th Janaury 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“There was no general bar in principle to the award of general damages for emotional distress where a freezing order was wrongly obtained but any such award would be sensitive to the facts of a particular case.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025